Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA23278 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:26:57 +0100 Message-Id: <200010030124.VAA06401@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:29:07 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001002091924.A662@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200010012005.QAA09382@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:10:33PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:19:24 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: the conscious universe
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Cutting to the chase, here:
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:10:33PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > But you are also denying any necessity of a complex pattern in the
> > material substrate from which consciousness can emerge. That
> > position has no evidence for it, and reams of evidence against it
> > (the undeniable complexity of any systen we can prove to be
> > conscious by means of its reaction to the sensed).
>
> My computer can be said to react to sensing its keys being pressed by
> putting characters up on the screen (as well as doing much other stuff).
> Explain how "reaction to the sensed" is evidence of consciousness.
>
There is reaction in your attempted counterexample, but not
sensation; it is the same blind and qualeless physical reaction
present when one billiard ball strikes another, just hooked on a
longer causal chain. Thus, my example stands.
>
> My position: There is, and can be, no objective evidence for (or against)
> consciousness, in individuals or in the universe, because it is entirely
> subjective, a "matter of opinion" as opposed to one of fact, which is why
> it is entirely legitimate to suggest that it be considered a universal
> attribute, instead of inexplicably being located in some systems that
> exceed some arbitrary degree of complexity.
>
Actually, the degree of complexity is not arbitrary; it is that which
is established by Godelian self-reference generally, but must be
empirically ascertained in any particular case. Even where explicit
self-consciousness does not inhere, there is a feedback loop
present in the interrelation of consciousness and environment,
which transcends the simplistic crudities of bouncing boulders and
gravitational attraction. That which is conscious of stimuli
selectively differentiates between then on the basis of perception
and history, responds to differing stimuli differently, and will modify
its responses on the basis of subsequent experience. Purposive,
discriminatory and evolutionarily elaborative behavior is the external
evidence of internal awareness.
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 02:28:17 BST